"Let’s replace JavaScript with something better," says John Ankarström.
https://john.ankarstrom.se/english/texts/replacing-javascript/
I'd love to see that happen, but I don't think he adequately explains what should be done with all of the JS currently in the wild.
I'd honestly settle for browsers handling JS the way they do cookies. Let me decide whether to allow all JS, allow only self-hosted JS, or disable JS entirely -- and let me blacklist/whitelist particular domains.
Is that so fucking hard?
@starbreaker It could be useful on tiny projects (the REST call from HTML for example), but it would also be a huge mistake for big ones: today JS Frameworks have a clean separation of concerns (HTML/CSS/JS => Semantic Content/Rendering/Behavior) that would be completely messed up with this philosophy (and will lead to non-testable code, spaghetti projects and so on).
And we're used to JS magic today, my guess is that most people will activate this on all websites without any curation.
@NicolasConstant I don't give a damn if most people ignore the JS controls and don't bother to lock down their browsers. I just want the option to do it myself.
@starbreaker You already can: disable all the JS or just some with uBlock Origin or uMatrix.
@NicolasConstant Thank you for telling me shit I already know.
Let me rephrase in plain English: We should not have to install extensions to control JavaScript. That functionality should be part of the browser, just like cookie control, because it is a fundamental privacy setting.
@starbreaker No reason to be aggressive.
So, if I'm following your logic, it seems to be a browser issue (it should ask us about what to execute) than a JS tech issue, isn't it?
